I always read Libertarian Money, enjoy their posts, and usually agree with them. I was reading the linked one, though, and just had to disagree.
Is a local government really less intrusive than a national government?
I don't think so.
Washington DC (or even the state capital) is far, far away. They could pass any "laws" they felt like, but without someone "local" to impose those "laws" on me, what power do they have?
Yes, a "law" saying I must mow my lawn in a particular way is actually more oppressive than a federal anti-gun "law", simply because, well, which one is more likely to be enforced against me?
Do you think the feds have enough hired goons to go around and commit acts of enforcement against everyone with a gun they have criminalized? No. Unless you draw attention to yourself in some way they'll probably never notice. But, the code enforcers who will steal from you based upon your lawn; they live near you. They may drive past your house every day. Chances of them not noticing you in some way is practically non-existent.
Even any federal "laws" you get caught breaking will probably be enforced first by the local goons on behalf of the feds.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of the local molesters and then focus on those thousands of miles away- if it's even worth the bother at that point. Because, without the complicity of the local thugs, how do the feds believe they will enforce anything?
Now, maybe a local government would be easier to fight off and win, but only if it couldn't call upon a federal backup gang to protect it from justice, and perhaps that's a good reason to undermine the false legitimacy of a "national government" first- and support secession or whatever cracks the egg. I'm all for breaking up any government into smaller, bitesize pieces, but I don't pretend one is somehow "better" than another. All are founded upon theft and aggression.
.